Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Fragile Ceasefire Appears to be Holding; Robert Harward is Interviewed about the Iran Strikes; Paul Offit is Interviewed about the New Vaccine Panel; Close Arguments in Combs Trial. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired June 25, 2025 - 08:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:44]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: All right, our breaking news this morning. President Trump pushing back on a highly classified military assessment from the Pentagon, which suggests, from our reporting, that the U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear sites was not nearly as effective as advertised by the administration, and that it reportedly only set the country's nuclear program back by a few months. Sort of the shortest end of it was, you know, two or three months. The longest was maybe a six-ish. Again, very preliminary. There will be others, but it does contradict what we had heard from the president and his team in the hours after the strikes, when they used the word obliteration.

And President Trump says that that obliteration means that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been set back by decades. Israeli intelligence, of course, the prime minister there had concluded that it only set it back by two to three years, or a few years, due to the Israeli strikes prior to the U.S. attack.

Right now, President Trump, though, is meeting with NATO leaders in The Hague, in the Netherlands, as here in the Middle East the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel is holding this morning. It's tenuous. It's fragile. There was such an exhaustion in the air that it is holding for now.

Nic Robertson is in Tel Aviv.

And, Nic, when I say for now it, in part, is because Israel, the prime minister there, has said he's not going to take his foot off the gas, although he doesn't say what that means. Iran has remained defiant and said that it will do what it -- what it seems it needs to do.

Nonetheless, in that context, there is a ceasefire holding here. Where you are now, how are the Israelis responding to President Trump's defense of this intelligence assessment?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: At an official level, it seems pretty clear. The spokesman for the IDF came out and said significant destruction that set the program -- set Iran's nuclear program back by years. And we've heard from the finance minister here, Bezalel Smotrich, you know, a key partner where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in government here, he also has said it's been set back by many years. He gave some caveats there, though. He did say, look, we're still working on making a full assessment. Nobody really knows the amount of damage, he said. But -- but the political narrative is very clear, set back by many years. And Smotrich then sort of deviated the track a little bit away from the nuclear program to say, look, it's important now that we support the people of Iran and try to effect regime change.

And I think one other sort of voice that it's worth just pointing out here, a lawmaker from the Knesset, in perhaps reference to what President Trump had alluded to, that Israel has people on the ground that can get into Fordow and see what's happened there, he said this very clearly, "no one knows with certainty,' he said, "because no one has visualized it yet." And I think what he's trying to make clear there is that if -- if Israel has assets there, he's saying that they haven't had eyes on the situation inside the plant. And I think that's where we're at. It's sort of definitely -- definitely the targets achieved. But holding back from going as far as obliterated and decades.

BURNETT: Yes.

ROBERTSON: And I think when you talk to people on the streets here, which is what we're -- what we've been doing, you might hear some of the sort of drilling and repairs going on behind us here as the city kind of patches itself back up.

BURNETT: All right, yes. OK.

ROBERTSON: Yes.

BURNETT: Yes. All right, Nic, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the president's at The Hague, speaking with the Dutch prime minister.

Let's listen in.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Every one of those speeches. Every one. And some were good and some weren't quite as good.

DICK SCHOOF, DUTCH PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I know. I realized. I was listening as well. Yes.

TRUMP: Yes. Yes. You did a beautiful job.

SCHOOF: Yes. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for being at the NATO summit. I think together we made a big achievement in NATO today. And going -- agreeing on the 5 percent, we're making a real big step forward --

TRUMP: Right.

SCHOOF: In our working together on defense industry and make sure that we got a deterrence in defense in the western world, Europe, America, Canada, together --

TRUMP: Right.

SCHOOF: Make it strong.

TRUMP: Thank you very much.

SCHOOF: Thank you. Big decisions today.

TRUMP: A great honor.

SCHOOF: Yes. My honor.

TRUMP: So, thank you very much, everybody.

SCHOOF: Thank you.

TRUMP: We're going to have a press conference in a couple of minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, press. Thank you, press.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, press.

TRUMP: So, how about we'll do that. We're going to do it in a couple of minutes. And great statements just came out from the Israeli atomic energy commission and from Iran, as you know, that it was complete, total destruction.

[08:35:06]

And CNN turned out to be fake news, as always. That's why they have no credibility. That's why they have no viewers. But we're going to read it to you if you haven't seen it. Have you seen it yet, Jeff?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

TRUMP: Have you seen it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

TRUMP: OK. Pretty good. Very unfair to the pilots that risked their lives for our country. And then they get fake news, "New York Times" and CNN, make up a phony story to get some hits. That's the only reason I cared about it, because those pilots were so brave. I've never seen anything like it. They flew into the hornet's nest, and then they got hurt so badly by what the fake news wrote. And it was CNN, it was "The New York Times," and they're both disgusting -- disgusting, really horrible groups of people.

The pilots did an unbelievable job like nobody's ever seen. They hit pay dirt. You see where the -- I guess you probably look, they call it the wound. You see where the wound is on the earth. And three of them right next to each other. Perfect. And they should be admired and respected for what they did. And the fake news, in order to try and hit me, the fake news made them look bad. But now they look really good again. So, that was the Israeli atomic energy commission. And it was also about the high commission of Iran just said it was totally demolished.

But we're going to have a news conference in a couple of minutes, and we'll see you, because I don't want to -- I don't want to burden the prime minister with this, OK?

Thank you very much, everybody.

(CROSS TALK)

TRUMP: Thank you.

REPORTER: How do you like The Netherlands?

TRUMP: I love The Netherlands. Are you from the Netherlands?

SCHOOF: She is.

TRUMP: I love The Netherlands.

REPORTER: It's -- if America is first, is the Netherlands second?

TRUMP: What'd she say?

SCHOOF: If America is first, is The Netherlands then second?

TRUMP: Oh, no. Well, I think -- I know some people put it first.

SCHOOF: Yes.

TRUMP: Have a good time, everybody. Thank you.

(CROSS TALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, press. Thank you, press. Thank you, press.

BURNETT: All right, we just heard the president of the United States again taking issue with the reporting on the initial defense assessment from his own Pentagon, assessing the effectiveness of the U.S. strikes.

Now, of course, as we've emphasized, that's the first one. There are 18 that will come out. As General Spider Marks has said, these assessments come out when they're early. You get more information and adjust them as necessary. But the initial assessment from the DIA was that the U.S. strikes specifically set the Iranian nuclear program back by a matter of a few months. But more information still -- still to come in that does, according to our Jim Sciutto, fit with what the Israeli BDA, which is their bomb assessment initial intelligence, is as well.

Joining us now is retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Robert Harward.

And -- and -- and, Admiral, let me just ask you, and -- and I -- there's two things I want to take on. One other thing the president said. But first, just the very basics here of -- of what happened when the president keeps calling it complete and utter destruction. In a sense, this is becoming a what adjective or word is someone going to use. But to take a step back from all of that or any name calling, right, what we're trying to understand here is the status of Iran's nuclear program and what it will mean to prevent Iran from obtaining another nuclear weapon.

Vice President Vance has -- or obtaining a nuclear weapon, I'm sorry.

Vice President Vance has acknowledged that the U.S. does not know where Iran's enriched fuel is. Do you think we will get answers on that? Because that is at the core of what happens next.

VICE ADM. ROBERT HARWARD, U.S. NAVY (RET.): I think that's the million dollar question, Erin. But I -- I would almost add, the core is our policy now. It's very clear that the United States and this administration have said we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So, regardless of what the intelligence lays out, that -- that's a long standing policy that's going to take not just this event but more to ensure they cannot reconstitute that capability, be it the material, be it the scientists who can build those bombs, facilities around them. So, this is going to take a lot of time to ensure that end state is met.

BURNETT: Yes.

HARWARD: And -- and I would add to that, this is only a subset of the broader Israeli policy and campaign plan. The Israeli plan goes after the surrogates. It goes after their ICBMs. It goes after their leadership.

BURNETT: Right.

HARWARD: We've only stepped in to directly support this objective. So, this still has to play out in a lot of different lanes. And that Israeli campaign kicked off after 7 October 2023, when they went after the surrogates first, when they had taken them down to ground zero, they then focused on the country. We've come in, in support, and made it clear that we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons program.

[08:40:01]

BURNETT: And I'm curious, Admiral, you know, the question of, the who's -- who's in charge right now in -- in Iran. We -- we hear a lot from the foreign minister. The -- the supreme leader, we have not heard anything from since before the ceasefire, actually, with his image of a burning flag, consistent with the usual post that come from his social media account. But that's all we've heard. We haven't heard anything from the supreme leader. What do you think of that silence?

HARWARD: Weak and vulnerable. That's the really -- the turning point. One, we've reestablished strategic deterrence. We've demonstrated to Iran and our other adversaries that we're willing to use force. And as you saw, not just this strike, this incredible movement of forces and assets, our ability to project power is unprecedented. No one in the world can do that. And that's the message to not only Iran, but our adversaries.

But back to this regime. The reason you're not hearing them, they're all hiding. They don't care about their people. They haven't put any word out to their people, but they know they're targets. So they're -- and their number one objective is taking care of themselves, preserving the regime. Who cares about the people. And this is the tragedy that Iran is today.

BURNETT: Yes. And, you know, I -- I will say, Admiral, I have heard from -- from people that I have not ever heard from before, frustration with the Iranian leadership and regime in -- in recent days. You know, a true sense of something notable had shifted. Now, we'll see whether that sticks or not.

But in that context, we know human intelligence was such -- was such a crucial part of what happened here. That -- that there had been deep penetration into the Iranian government, into the regime, into the military itself, the IRGC, perhaps, by Israelis and other intelligence. Do you think that all those agents are going to be safe, or they're going to be outed, or what do you think is happening here because that story, the human beings that were involved in this is somehow fundamental to the whole situation unfolding.

HARWARD: Erin, you've got it. You're spot on. And that's, I think, the most important thing for everyone to consider. The Iranian people have suffered for decades under this regime. They've oppressed them. And if they are any real dissent, they kill them. And that's the dilemma we're in now. We've -- we've illustrated and -- and demonstrated to everyone how weak and vulnerable this regime is. So, they may be less concerned. They're accepting the ceasefire wholeheartedly so that they can focus internally.

So, I would imagine, and from what I'm hearing some of my friends and contacts, they're doubling down internally. They're going after all dissent. They're going to make it even more repressive, more dangerous to the Iranian people. And so, this is just -- it compounds the human tragedy that Iran has been for decades. And I think this is -- is really going to be a challenging time.

And there are those who believe, although no one's saying that, this could be a impetus to regime change. You know, the kind of holy grail change from within, in Iran, that could lead to an enduring peace, security and stability in the region. But, boy, that's a tall order. And a lot of people will suffer in their efforts to bring that to fruition.

BURNETT: Yes. Yes, and, of course, in the moment, things may seem like there's more opportunity for that than -- than there are as the days pass.

Thank you so much, Admiral Harward. Really appreciate your time.

Omar, back to you.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Erin, we'll get back to you soon. Still ahead for us here, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.'s newly formed vaccine advisory committee is set to meet today. And this comes as we have new CNN reporting that a study on vaccines set to be presented, or at least was set to be presented at this meeting, didn't appear to exist. More on that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:48:01]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisory committee is set to meet today for the first time. Last month Kennedy fired, you'll remember, all 17 members of this group and replaced them with eight of his own. One withdrew this morning. And when firing the last ACIP panel, as it's called, Kennedy said that the -- that that committee had been, quote, "plagued with persistent conflicts of interest."

Well, on Tuesday, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren actually sent a letter to Secretary Kennedy saying that this new panel that he has picked was rife with conflict of interest themselves and that Kennedy, quote/unquote, "hand-picked" these new members to further his anti- vaccine agenda.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy is also sharing concern about the makeup of the group, writing that some of the new appointees, quote, "lack experience studying new technologies such as mRNA vaccines, and may even have a preconceived bias against them." He's called for today's meeting to be postponed.

Joining us right now for more on what this means is Dr. Paul Offit. He's the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, a member of the FDA vaccine advisory board.

It's good to see you, Doctor.

You, like Republican and Democratic senators, as I was just showing, have a real issue with the makeup of this new vaccine committee. What do you see here?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: Well, this committee, as it's currently constructed, would never have passed the normal process to get on the -- to -- to be a voting member. You really have to show some expertise, some experience in the field in order to be able to give it good advice. And that is not who this committee is. So, I think we are about to get some very bad advice from a group that shouldn't be giving us advice.

BOLDUAN: And on the issue, as I was laying out, of -- Kennedy has said previously, and said again yesterday in a committee hearing, that he fired the whole panel, which was really kind of unprecedented, and replaced them.

[08:50:07]

The reason being is conflicts of interest. And in this hearing yesterday he said, "I fired people who had conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry."

Is that the case?

OFFIT: No, it's not the case. And what he should be held to is name one person who has a conflict of interest. One person who, because they are being funded, say, by the pharmaceutical industry, that that has influenced their vote, because that is true of none of the 17 people that he just fired, which is why he does this sort of vague, hand-waving, slanderous statement, instead of pointing to anybody in specific.

It's -- it's awful. And he -- so what he did was he just fired a group of people who had the expertise, who had the experience to give us good advice and replaced them with people who don't.

BOLDUAN: CNN has also new reporting that -- and this speaks to some of the people who may be on -- maybe that who are on this committee, is that a presentation slated to be shared in this first meeting, that it -- and it was posted online yesterday, does not appear to exist. CNN's Meg Tirrell had really great reporting on this, that the author cited of this supposed study, she contacted this person and he said that it's not his and comes to a wildly different conclusion than an actual study that he had conducted and that was actually published. Without going into the detail, the nonexistent study, if you will -- if I sum it up, suggested a connection to autism in terms of a preservative that can be put in some vaccines. The actual study concluded there wasn't evidence of a connection.

I mean, what's your reaction to this?

OFFIT: So, Lyn Redwood will be doing that presentation. She has been an anti-vaccine activist for 25 years. She claims that thimerosal, this ethylmercury containing preservatives that was in vaccines 25 years ago but isn't in vaccines given to children today, that that caused autism and a variety of other problems, which isn't true. So, if you're an anti-vaccine activist, what do you do? You either point to studies that don't exist, you misrepresent studies that do, or you point to some methodologically flawed study that is so poorly done as to be uninterpretable. That's been the anti-vaccine playbook for decades. And now, unfortunately, the anti-vaccine activists who've been shouting from the sidelines for years are now in a position to make policy, public policy, and I think our children are going to suffer this.

BOLDUAN: Here's kind of the -- the crux of it. Most people don't know about ACIP, don't watch the meetings, don't look at the CDC website, which does provide, actually, you can go there and look for conflict -- the conflicts of interest that they are required to report. Most people do not know about it themselves. What -- talk to me about the influence of this committee and what impact do you think now this new version of ACIP will have?

OFFIT: Right. So, the people who do look at the committee are insurance companies, because when a vaccine is recommended, then it will be insured by insurance companies. And the other people, groups of people, that look at it are the scientific and medical community, which now, frankly, can't trust that committee. And there are a number of groups that are trying to put expert committees together that will at least run parallel to that group that you can trust because I think now the ACIP has lost the trust of the medical and scientific public.

CORNISH: Dr. Paul Offit, thank you very much for coming on today.

Still ahead for us, President Trump set to meet with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy this morning. We're going to bring you that live when it happens.

And also today, the federal sex trafficking racketeering trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs coming -- could very soon be coming to an end. So, what to expect when the jury gets the case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:58:09]

JIMENEZ: By the end of the week, the jury in the Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial could begin deliberating the music mogul's fate. Closing arguments are set to begin tomorrow.

Now, yesterday, both the prosecution and defense rested their cases after 28 days of testimony. Combs himself decided not to testify. And the defense didn't call a single witness.

Joining me now, CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister.

So, Elizabeth, attorneys are going to meet today on jury instructions. The trial is obviously coming to its end here, but what's next?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Here's what's next, Omar. So, closing arguments are set to begin tomorrow. That means that the jury can have this case as soon as Friday.

Now, prosecutors have said likely Monday, but this thing is really coming to an end.

And to give you a bit of a preview of what these closing arguments will likely look like. Well, prosecutors say that Sean Combs coerced and threatened women, like Cassie and Jane, into these so-called freak-offs, those drug fueled sex parties, where they say that women were again coerced and forced into having sex with male escorts.

Now, the prosecute -- the defense, sorry about that, they now -- they say, our client is not a criminal. He may not be a good person. He may have done things that you don't agree with, but these were consensual relationships with former girlfriends.

Now, final point on that that I want to make. People who have been covering this Combs saga, they know there have been so many allegations, in fact 70 -- around 70 civil suits against him. The allegations are this big, right? They can fill up this whole studio, Omar. But this case is this big. The scope is very limited. So, this case is not a lock by any means. JIMENEZ: And, you know, Combs didn't testify in -- in this case, in his defense. But as we understand, he did -- he did speak in court to the -- to the judge, as I understand. What did he say?

[09:00:00]

WAGMEISTER: He did. So, yesterday, the judge asked if he understood his right to testify or not to testify. By the way, I had that scoop the day before.